IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF WONG CHUI TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  WONG CHUI, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Manila (CC 50245) dated July 28, 1964, declaring that Wong Chui possesses
all the qualifications prescribed by law, and none of the disqualifications
mentioned in the Revised Naturalization Law, and granted his petition for
naturalization, inspite of the opposition of the
Solicitor General, based on the grounds, among others, that (1) the petitioner
has not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his
entire stay in the Philippines, because he used aliases without judicial
authority; and (2) that his character witnesses namely, Antero
S. Sarreal and Rosario Rivera, are not credible
witnesses.

Wong Chui was born in Manila
on January 25, 1924, of Chinese
parents, baptized as Modesto Gonzales Wong Way Chui, and registered in that
name with the Bureau of Immigration.  He
is married to Chuan So Wah, with whom he has eight
children, namely, Carolina,
Catherine, Roberto, Cristina, Edward, Zenaida, Florence,
and Sylvia, all surnamed Wong.  The first
four are enrolled in the University of the East, Manila.  Edward and Zenaida
are enrolled in the St. Mary’s Academy, Magdalena St.,
also in Manila.  His recorded incomes for the taxable years
1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, are P6,667.64, P6,052.54 P4,475.96,
P10,384.16, and P8,019.25 respectively. 
He declared that he can speak, read and write English and Tagalog; that he believes in the principles underlying the
Constitution of the Philippines;
that he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner; and that
he has mingled socially with the Filipinos. 
His two character witnesses, Antero S. Sarreal and Rosario Rivera, both affirmed the contents of
their separate affidavits which were attached to the petition for naturalization.  Sarreal, who
testified having known the petitioner since 1939, and Rivera, who testified
having known him since 1947, both declared that the petitioner possesses good
moral character and has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner, that he
has mingled socially with the Fi­lipinos, and that he has adopted and embraced
the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.

After due trial, the court rendered the decision subject of the
present appeal.  The self-same arguments
offered in the court below are the same grounds asserted by the Solicitor Gen­eral
in the present appeal.  Any of these
grounds, if true, is sufficient basis for denial of the petition for
naturalization.

Wong Chui, it is contended, has not conducted himself in a proper
and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the Philippines for he used
aliases interchangeably during his said stay, i.e., “Modesto
Gonzales Wong Way Chui” in his Alien Certificate of Registration,
Immigration Certificate of Residence and in his income tax returns filed with
the Bureau of Internal Revenue; “Wong Chee
Kan” during his elementary schooling; “Wong Way Chui” in the
birth certificates of his children Carolina and Cristina; and “Wong
Chui” in his amended petition for naturalization.  His character witness Rosario Rivera declared
that Wong Chui has been known to her as “Modesto Gonzales”,
“Wong Chui” and “Wong Chui Kan”.

The use of the above aliases is not denied by the
petitioner, but he explained that he was registered upon birth as “Wong
Chui”; that when he first attended school, his father enrolled him under
the name “Wong Chee Kan”, in accordance
with a Chinese custom which permits the father to choose an appropriate name
for his child on such an important event in life as the start of schooling;
that the name “Modesto Gonza­les” was prefixed to his Chinese name in
conformity with the practice of adding the sponsor’s name to the child’s
Chinese name, and in his case his father’s middle name “Way” was in­cluded,
hence his adoption of the name “Modesto Gonzales Wong Way Chui”; and
that “Wong Way Chui” is his legitimate name as his father’s middle
name is “Way”.

The petitioner’s use of said aliases is violative of section 1 of Commonwealth Act 142 which
unequivocally provides that “Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes
no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was
christened or by which he has been known since childhood, or such substitute
name as may have been authorized by a competent court.” The aliases
used were without authority of a competent court.  The petitioner therefore violated said section
1, aside from section 2 of the same Act which requires a person “desiring
to use an alias or aliases” “to obtain judi­cial authority” therefor.  The use of
said aliases by the petitioner without judicial authority “hardly
speaks well of his character or of his fitness to become a Filipino
citizen” (Cosme Go Tian
Ana alias Ana vs. Republic, L-19833, Aug. 31,1966), indicates that he
has not conducted himself properly, and dis­qualifies him to acquire Philippine
citizenship (Lim Bun vs. Republic, L-12822, April 26, 1961).

Furthermore, petitioner’s character witnesses are not competent
to vouch for the good moral character and behaviour
of the petitioner “during the entire period of the alien’s residence in
the Philippines”
(Yap vs. Republic, L-19832, Aug. 23, 1966), that is, from 1924, the year he was
born, up to 1960 when he filed his petition for naturalization.  Antero S. Sarreal appears to have known the petitioner intimately
only in 1939 and 1940, when the latter was his (Antero’s)
pupil in language and arithmetic at the Manila
Chinese Patriotic
School.  Sarreal admitted
that his association with the petitioner “was purely and strictly a
relation between pupil and teacher.” Rosario Rivera came to know the
petitioner only in 1947 when she applied as a seamstress in the dress shop of
his mother-in-law.  And despite her
protestation that she had worked there for 13 years, that is until 1960, she
cannot recall when the petitioner acquired a printing press.  She does not know, of the petitioner’s source
of income.  While she claimed that she
stayed in the house of the petitioner’s mother-in-law, where the petitioner at
the same time also lived, she does not even know where the petitioner worked at
that time.  She does not also know the
“faith” to which the petitioner belongs.  She declared that the petitioner adheres to
the principles underlying the Constitution of the Philippines,
but admitted in the same breath that she has not even read the provisions of
the Constitution.

ACCORDINGLY,
the judgment a quo is reversed, and the petition is hereby denied, at
petitioner-appellee’s cost.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and
Sanchez, JJ., concur.